Seeing as these are merely allegations at this point I'm more than happy to follow the American justice system in spirit. Mr. Cosby is innocent until a court of law has found him guilty. My court of public opinion wouldn't get a conviction anyway.

Yea, funny I just heard bout it on radio on way home(not one to watch news much, mainly due to these sort of things.)

I think they are just 'allegations,' given that they did dated back many years ago. I mean, come on, you gonna wait decades to finally report something? You see this sort of thing with fame all the time, people making claims of someone doing something they may of not even be responsible for. And even if he was guilty, evidence behind it may be quite hard to properly present, just saying.

He is really the last person I would expect as a serial rapist, I just can't see it. Amusing thought though.

Sorry, but I've heard too many horror stories from people that had their name dragged through the mud because someone falsely accused them of sexual assault, without a court ever getting involved, for me to give in to that argument. I do agree that there can be a lower standard of evidence for personal actions than for a court punishment, but there still needs to be a standard set somewhere.

Regardless, to be honest this response has pretty much completely soured my opinion of the whole ordeal, so I'll be leaving the thread.

I ran the numbers on this once before: There's a ~2% false-accuse rate and a 95% no-convict rate. Why are 2% of victims more valuable and worthy of protection than 95%?

I think they are just 'allegations,' given that they did dated back many years ago. I mean, come on, you gonna wait decades to finally report something? You see this sort of thing with fame all the time, people making claims of someone doing something they may of not even be responsible for. And even if he was guilty, evidence behind it may be quite hard to properly present, just saying.

Yes, yes you are. Because you might be too traumatized to deal with it in the moment. You might be worried about being victimized again by a system stacked heavily against you. You might just want to put it behind you and try to pretend it never happened. You might not even remember it until something makes you think about it. You might be intimidated by the power imbalance between you and a major celebrity. You might, for any number of reasons, not have the strength to fight that battle - until other people come out and speak openly about it, showing you that you are not alone and lending you that strength.

You, as an outsider, do not get to dictate to victims how they should behave.

I ran the numbers on this once before: There's a ~2% false-accuse rate and a 95% no-convict rate. Why are 2% of victims more valuable and worthy of protection than 95%?

Yes. The American legal system has always worked on the idea that it's better to let ten guilty people go free rather than falsely convict one man. The two-percent's innocence is more important than ninety-five percent's guilt.

First, the post I was responding to explicitly avoided calling out the justice system; it was referring strictly to public opinion. So... see Kythia's post.

Second, you're not answering the question I was asking: What about the 95% of victims who get to be revictimized, told they're lying or imagining things, forced to remain in close proximity to their attackers, and left in cycles of abuse? Forget "this has been our standard so we have to go with it"; I, for one, am all about making sure that we do the least harm and the most good for the most people.

First, the post I was responding to explicitly avoided calling out the justice system; it was referring strictly to public opinion. So... see Kythia's post.

Second, you're not answering the question I was asking: What about the 95% of victims who get to be revictimized, told they're lying or imagining things, forced to remain in close proximity to their attackers, and left in cycles of abuse? Forget "this has been our standard so we have to go with it"; I, for one, am all about making sure that we do the least harm and the most good for the most people.

Well I'm sorry I must have misread your original point.

You said approximately two percent are false accusations that infers that approximately two percent of people accused of some kind of sexual (for the sake of brevity) misconduct are accused falsely.

You then said 95% of people don't get convicted, that reads like 95% of people get away with it.

Finally you asked if this 2% of people who were falsely accused were more worthy of protection than the 95% of the people who were not convicted. To which I replied yes. At no point in your post did you actually make any indication or inference to a re-victimization statistic. Your original post indicates that the percentages are:

I ran the numbers on this once before: There's a ~2% false-accuse rate and a 95% no-convict rate. Why are 2% of victims more valuable and worthy of protection than 95%?

Two percent of people are falsely accused.

However you shouldn't have use a 95% no-conviction rate, you should have said a 95% of victims never come forward. The way it's originally stated means my statement still hold up, because a 95% no-conviction rate implies that 95% of people get away with it, not that 95% of people never come forward. The way you said it sounds like the 95% weren't the victims but the perpetrators.

In the way you intend they're all equally worthy of protection and the only thing we can do is instill in people that it's okay to come forward, as traumatic as it is doing nothing and waiting for years will not help them for the 95% and we shouldn't falsely convict the two percent of innocent people of a crime they didn't commit.

How do you think long-history abusers get away with it? Nobody thought Savile could possibly be a rapist, either.

But he wasn't. There was never any convictions on him and I have saw no hard evidence tying him responsible for any of those allegations to the scandal as of yet either, unless you would like to kindly direct me somewhere of documented proof and not simply 'reports' and 'claims' of victims. That is the same as saying, nobody thought Micheal Jackson was a child molester, either and other popular celebrities who are blamed for sexual offenses. ;\

Personally, I think people are just too willing to use the racial card. Bill Cosby, if he did these things is horrible for it and to hide behind his fame to keep it quiet is deplorable. That is the main issue here, to say he attacked white women because he was black, that's just stupid and insane in my book. So many black men rape white women, so many black men also rape black, asian and so on, so many white men again rape black, asian, white. Rape is not about the color of one's skin, now or ever. He raped black women too from what I know of, so if he was racial profiling, he would have just gone with one race.

Now, I have never cared for people using the race card, if a black man is killed by a white person, they did it for racial reasons or so everyone but the white people believe, it wouldn't matter if the man broke into your house, if your white and he's black, it's a race thing. But when a black man kills a white man, it's just murder....pure plain and simple, there's no race card the whites can put on that? Seriously people, it's just something to fall back on when you think you can use it, people should look at the facts rather then the race, period.

But he wasn't. There was never any convictions on him and I have saw no hard evidence tying him responsible for any of those allegations to the scandal as of yet either, unless you would like to kindly direct me somewhere of documented proof and not simply 'reports' and 'claims' of victims. That is the same as saying, nobody thought Micheal Jackson was a child molester, either and other popular celebrities who are blamed for sexual offenses. ;\

No, no it isn't. You didn't see any convictions on him because the Crown isn't in the business of prosecuting corpses; Yewtree, which started with Savile, did certainly result in arrests. Please note that the Metropolitan Police Service found that he had committed literally hundreds of criminal acts, and the NHS found a lot of dirt when they started digging. No courtroom does not mean not credible. Celebrity perpetrator does not mean not credible.

I also want to say one more thing. Sometimes those who are raped do come forward and are told there is nothing that can be done about it. I know this because my exhusband raped me anally, because I was married to him and there was no law protecting women in Utah at the time, I was told I couldn't say no to my husband and he had every right to do what he wanted to me. Right? Hell no it wasn't right, but the law protected him, not me. And sadly the law protects the accused a hell of a lot better then it does the accuser, the justice system is terribly flawed. My sister was ran over by a law student, and he got to walk free while now her body continues to break down daily because he ran her over all because he was pissed off a girl he was working on at a bar went home with someone else. He got 45 days in jail, was allowed to take the bar to become a lawyer and now only has to pay medical restitution to my sister who can no longer work because of his actions. Fair? Hell no.

This is why people don't come forward with allegations, because even now the women who are victimized are very likely to get no justice for the crimes against them. So you wonder why they didn't come out before? Well now you have a couple of very good reasons why.

But he wasn't. There was never any convictions on him and I have saw no hard evidence tying him responsible for any of those allegations to the scandal as of yet either, unless you would like to kindly direct me somewhere of documented proof and not simply 'reports' and 'claims' of victims. That is the same as saying, nobody thought Micheal Jackson was a child molester, either and other popular celebrities who are blamed for sexual offenses. ;\

There were never any convictions during his lifetime because accusations were largely covered up (both directly and as a result of a culture of disbelief) and no convictions since because the Crown can't prosecute dead people.

I'd suggest reading Giving Victims a Voice, the official report into the Savile investigations and the other link Ephiral included above.

We've seen what are seemingly false accusations against celebrities in recent years, some of which came to trial; I mentioned several of them in my first post on the topic. If one wanted to talk about "opportunistic" accusations then some of them are probably a better place to start... using Savile as a an example of someone convicted by media pressure or subject to false allegations is pretty much backing a losing horse.

Three men were involved in a home invasion/burglary crime last month. One was the getaway driver while the other two did the house breaking. One had a gun stolen during a previous home invasion. The owner of the home is a single white woman who lives on her own. She had a gun of her own for personal protection. Was the crew racist to break into the home of a white woman or would she have been racist if she had shot them because she was terrified and feeling threatened? What difference should it make? I think the word racist is over-used and because of that it loses it's power to help those attacked on that level find justice.

Three men were involved in a home invasion/burglary crime last month. One was the getaway driver while the other two did the house breaking. One had a gun stolen during a previous home invasion. The owner of the home is a single white woman who lives on her own. She had a gun of her own for personal protection. Was the crew racist to break into the home of a white woman or would she have been racist if she had shot them because she was terrified and feeling threatened? What difference should it make? I think the word racist is over-used and because of that it loses it's power to help those attacked on that level find justice.

Hard to answer your questions since you never mentioned the race of the home invaders. Or were you trying to see if others assumed they were not white?

Three men were involved in a home invasion/burglary crime last month. One was the getaway driver while the other two did the house breaking. One had a gun stolen during a previous home invasion. The owner of the home is a single white woman who lives on her own. She had a gun of her own for personal protection. Was the crew racist to break into the home of a white woman or would she have been racist if she had shot them because she was terrified and feeling threatened? What difference should it make? I think the word racist is over-used and because of that it loses it's power to help those attacked on that level find justice.

It's all racist, crimes perpetrated against the human race are racist against humans. Stop being self-haters, world. :(

Thank you for the clarification, B Mistress. My UNEDUCATED ASSUMPTION is: If she had shot the men, she might be deemed racist by some public opinion. If they injured or killed the woman, it would be a murder investigation and most of the media would not bring up the race issue. I have no statistics or facts to prove that, juts an assumption and opinion on my part.

Someone help me with math. I am not a mathematician.

If there are 2% false accusations, does that mean there are 98% truthful accusations?

If there are 95% no-convictions, are 100% of those 95% guilty and they just got away with it? So this assumption is that 100% of all defense arguments in these types of cases are lies? Does this mean the defense attorneys are morally corrupt in these cases? If 100% of defense attorneys in these cases are corrupt, does this mean 100% of the prosecutors are righteous and never wrong?

If you've ever been raped, you'll understand why someone might not come out and make an accusation, especially against someone that has power and influence and money and is well liked, someone who you know people will look at the victim as some sort of opportunist, not as what they are, a victim of a inhuman crime. as was stated, 2% of actual reported rapes are false - with as many rapes that go unreported, that number, in reality is probably closer to .002%.

women don't just make this shit up for publicity. i imagine that most of them are going thru the joy of reliving what happened to them just by standing up and telling their story. i hope that they nail this bastard to the wall and destroy him and his legacy. yes, there should be a trial, yes we should do this right, but once he is convicted, and i believe that if there is any justice in this world, he will be, he should be treated like any other rapist and put away for life. fuck him. he's not Doctor Huxtable - Doctor Huxable is a character he played on a tv show.

They're not going to look any less opportunistic having waited so long, generally, people are liable to look upon the victims as being even more opportunistic. Now they're not accusing young affluent Bill Cosby, now they're picking on old, nostalgia-backed Bill Cosby.

And sadly as much as I would like to think that there are nothing but genuine victims coming forward there are always opportunists, especially in cases like this where there could be any number of victims and evidence is so far removed from the actual time in which it happened, another reason why I advocate that, as much as it is traumatic, the victims need to not hide it.

Does the idea of a few bad apples spoiling the bunch suck? Yes. Does it make it harder to find the genuine cases, making people skeptical overall? Yes.Should there be a statue of limitations on these kind of things? Yes.Does that also mean that any man accused of rape is in fact a rapist? I don't think so, but waiting days, let alone decades doesn't help anyone but the accused.

Do I think Mr. Cosby did it? I don't know. As far as I've been able to find it's all allegations and discovery. Who knows if this will even go forward criminally.

I'm sorry. I was quoting numbers from hazy memory, which was dumb of me. The highest available "false-report" stat (actually a "not-enough-evidence" stat, which is different but...) is the FBI's, at 8%. The arrest rate on reported cases is about25%, which is where that 2% I was remembering came from. From this, if we actually care about being right and responding well, we can see that we should err on the side of believing victims unless there's counterevidence.

However, dwarfing all of this in the stats is the actual report rate: Somewhere a bit south of 18%. Now consider that making things easier on the false-report victims is almost certain to make it harder for actual victims to report - false positives will happen in any screening process. 4 out of 5 rape victims are already unwilling or unable to report. Do we really need to work hard to leave more of them out in the cold?

Thank you very much for the clarification, Ephiral. All those statistics point to a sad condition we live with. The wish is for more victims to gain the support they need in order to stand back up and fight for their rights and liberties. Men (or women) who abuse the innocent must meet with the harshest of punishments for committing violent acts, not unlike repeat armed assailants.

I read a study somewhere that it was claimed that no pedophile has been successfully rehabilitated or reconditioned from their tendencies. Once a child molester or rapist, always a molester or rapist. If this is so, then why do we allow them to re-enter society with but an electronic ankle bracelet? I cite a case back about two years ago near Syracuse where one such man was allowed to live at home, broke off his ankle bracelet, went to a mall and abducted, raped, and killed a teenaged girl in the parking lot. Unfortunately, Hitler was right about these aberrant individuals in society. If they cannot be fixed or controlled, then they must be terminated. Shocking, I know. I'm sure I will get a backlash from mentioning Hitler, but if it's a choice between my children's safety by executing repeat, violent sexual predators, then I lean towards the extreme.

I stand firmly against the death penalty under any circumstances, because again, false positives are a thing. How many innocent people can the state murder while claiming justice and the moral high ground?

Perhaps part of the reason there's a high recidivism rate is because it's pretty much illegal for people to get help for those issues - normal safe channels (psych specialists, etc) are legally required to report. So they remain silent and trying to bottle things up, which nigh-inevitably leads to it coming out in unhealthy and destructive ways.